Organ Transplants From Deceased Donors With Primary Brain Tumors and Risk of Cancer Transmission.

Importance: Cancer transmission is a known risk for recipients of organ transplants. Many people wait a long time for a suitable transplant; some never receive one. Although patients with brain tumors may donate their organs, opinions vary on the risks involved. Objective: To determine the risk of cancer transmission associated with organ transplants from deceased donors with primary brain tumors. Key secondary objectives were to investigate the association that donor brain tumors have with organ usage and posttransplant survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study in England and Scotland, conducted from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, with follow-up to December 31, 2020. This study used linked data on deceased donors and solid organ transplant recipients with valid national patient identifier numbers from the UK Transplant Registry, the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (England), and the Scottish Cancer Registry. For secondary analyses, comparators were matched on factors that may influence the likelihood of organ usage or transplant failure. Statistical analysis of study data took place from October 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Exposures: A history of primary brain tumor in the organ donor, identified from all 3 data sources using disease codes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Transmission of brain tumor from the organ donor into the transplant recipient. Secondary outcomes were organ utilization (ie, transplant of an offered organ) and survival of kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplants and their recipients. Key covariates in donors with brain tumors were tumor grade and treatment history. Results: This study included a total of 282 donors (median [IQR] age, 42 [33-54] years; 154 females [55%]) with primary brain tumors and 887 transplants from them, 778 (88%) of which were analyzed for the primary outcome. There were 262 transplants from donors with high-grade tumors and 494 from donors with prior neurosurgical intervention or radiotherapy. Median (IQR) recipient age was 48 (35-58) years, and 476 (61%) were male. Among 83 posttransplant malignancies (excluding NMSC) that occurred over a median (IQR) of 6 (3-9) years in 79 recipients of transplants from donors with brain tumors, none were of a histological type matching the donor brain tumor. Transplant survival was equivalent to that of matched controls. Kidney, liver, and lung utilization were lower in donors with high-grade brain tumors compared with matched controls. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that the risk of cancer transmission in transplants from deceased donors with primary brain tumors was lower than previously thought, even in the context of donors that are considered as higher risk. Long-term transplant outcomes are favorable. These results suggest that it may be possible to safely expand organ usage from this donor group.

Outcomes of Declined Deceased Donor Kidney Offers That Are Subsequently Implanted: A UK Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: Deceased donor kidneys are often declined for ≥1 patients but then implanted into another. Studies are needed to guide transplant clinicians and patients, especially given the increasing age and comorbidity of donors. This study compares outcomes of recipients of transplanted kidneys that were initially declined with outcomes of patients who remained on the waiting list. METHODS: This UK Transplant Registry study examined named-patient, adult donation after brain death donor single kidney-only offers that were declined for donor- or organ-related reasons (DORRs), in which the kidney was subsequently transplanted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. Outcomes included graft function and survival of kidneys transplanted following DORR decline, survival and transplant status of patients who had a kidney declined, and intercenter decline rates. RESULTS: A total of 4722 kidneys declined for DORRs, which eventually resulted in single kidney-only transplants, were examined. One year after the offer decline, 35% of patients for whom the organ was declined remained on the list, 55% received a deceased donor transplant at a median of 174 d after the initial offer decline, and 4% had been removed or died. For patients transplanted following offer decline, there was no significant difference in 5-y graft survival when comparing the outcomes to those recipients who received the declined kidney. There was significant variation in DORR decline rates between UK transplant units (17%-54%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows reasonable outcomes of kidneys previously declined for DORRs and supports the utilization of those considered to be of higher risk for carefully selected recipients.

Utilization and clinical outcomes of kidney transplants from deceased donors with albuminuria in the UK: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Urinalysis is a standard component of potential deceased kidney donor assessment in the UK. The value of albuminuria as a biomarker for organ quality is uncertain. We examined the relationship between deceased donor albuminuria and kidney utilization, survival and function. METHODS: We performed a national cohort study on adult deceased donors and kidney transplant recipients between 2016 and 2020, using data from the UK Transplant Registry. We examined the influence of donor albuminuria, defined as ≥2+ on dipstick testing, on kidney utilization, early graft function, graft failure and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). RESULTS: Eighteen percent (1681/9309) of consented donors had albuminuria. After adjustment for confounders, kidneys from donors with albuminuria were less likely to be accepted for transplantation (74% versus 82%; odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.81). Of 9834 kidney transplants included in our study, 1550 (16%) came from donors with albuminuria. After a median follow-up of 2 years, 8% (118/1550) and 9% (706/8284) of transplants from donors with and without albuminuria failed, respectively. There was no association between donor albuminuria and graft failure (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.11). There was also no association with delayed graft function, patient survival or eGFR at 1 or 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests reluctance in the UK to utilize kidneys from deceased donors with dipstick albuminuria but no evidence of an association with graft survival or function. This may represent a potential to expand organ utilization without negatively impacting transplant outcomes.

Solid Organ Transplantation From Deceased Donors With Infective Endocarditis: The UK Experience.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence regarding the use of organs from deceased donors with infective endocarditis. We performed a retrospective analysis of the utilization, safety, and long-term survival of transplants from donors with infective endocarditis in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We studied deceased donor transplants over an 18-y period (2001-2018) using data from the UK Transplant Registry. We estimated the risk of infection transmission, defined as a microbiological isolate in the recipient matching the causative organism in the donor in the first 30 days posttransplant. We examined all-cause allograft failure up to 5 years in kidney and liver recipients, comparing transplants from donors with endocarditis with randomly selected matched control transplants. RESULTS: We studied 88 transplants from 42 donors with infective endocarditis. We found no cases of infection transmission. There was no difference in allograft failure between transplants from donors with infective endocarditis and matched control transplants, among either kidney (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.66-3.34) or liver (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.54-2.41) recipients. Compared with matched controls, donors with infective endocarditis donated fewer organs (2.3 versus 3.2 organs per donor; P < 0.001) and were less likely to become kidney donors (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found acceptable safety and long-term allograft survival in transplants from selected donors with infective endocarditis in the United Kingdom. This may have implications for donor selection and organ utilization.

Changes in quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients and those awaiting transplantation in the UK ATTOM programme: a longitudinal cohort questionnaire survey with additional qualitative interviews.

OBJECTIVE: To examine quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in kidney transplant recipients and those awaiting transplantation. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort questionnaire surveys and qualitative semi-structured interviews using thematic analysis with a pragmatic approach. SETTING: Completion of generic and disease-specific PROMs at two time points, and telephone interviews with participants UK-wide. PARTICIPANTS: 101 incident deceased-donor (DD) and 94 incident living-donor (LD) kidney transplant recipients, together with 165 patients on the waiting list (WL) from 18 UK centres recruited to the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) programme completed PROMs at recruitment (November 2011 to March 2013) and 1 year follow-up. Forty-one of the 165 patients on the WL received a DD transplant and 26 received a LD transplant during the study period, completing PROMs initially as patients on the WL, and again 1 year post-transplant. A subsample of 10 LD and 10 DD recipients participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: LD recipients were younger, had more educational qualifications and more often received a transplant before dialysis. Controlling for these and other factors, cross-sectional analyses at 12 months post-transplant suggested better QoL, renal-dependent QoL and treatment satisfaction for LD than DD recipients. Patients on the WL reported worse outcomes compared with both transplant groups. However, longitudinal analyses (controlling for pre-transplant differences) showed that LD and DD recipients reported similarly improved health status and renal-dependent QoL (p<0.01) pre-transplant to post-transplant. Patients on the WL had worsened health status but no change in QoL. Qualitative analyses revealed transplant recipients' expectations influenced their recovery and satisfaction with transplant. CONCLUSIONS: While cross-sectional analyses suggested LD kidney transplantation leads to better QoL and treatment satisfaction, longitudinal assessment showed similar QoL improvements in PROMs for both transplant groups, with better outcomes than for those still wait-listed. Regardless of transplant type, clinicians need to be aware that managing expectations is important for facilitating patients' adjustment post-transplant.

Donor-Transmitted Cancer in Orthotopic Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review.

Donor-transmitted cancer (DTC) has major implications for the affected patient as well as other recipients of organs from the same donor. Unlike heterotopic transplant recipients, there may be limited treatment options for orthotopic transplant recipients with DTC. We systematically reviewed the evidence on DTC in orthotopic solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in January 2020. We included cases where the outcome was reported and excluded donor-derived cancers. We assessed study quality using published checklists. Our domains of interest were presentation, time to diagnosis, cancer extent, management, and survival. There were 73 DTC cases in liver (n = 51), heart (n = 10), lung (n = 10) and multi-organ (n = 2) recipients from 58 publications. Study quality was variable. Median time to diagnosis was 8 months; 42% were widespread at diagnosis. Of 13 cases that underwent re-transplantation, three tumours recurred. Mortality was 75%; median survival 7 months. Survival was worst in transmitted melanoma and central nervous system tumours. The prognosis of DTC in orthotopic SOTRs is poor. Although re-transplantation offers the best chance of cure, some tumours still recur. Publication bias and clinical heterogeneity limit the available evidence. From our findings, we suggest refinements to clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020165001, Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020165001.

Changes in quality of life, health status and other patient-reported outcomes following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPKT): a quantitative and qualitative analysis within a UK-wide programme.

We examined quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in 95 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients and 41 patients wait-listed for SPKT recruited to the UK Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) programme. Wait-listed patients transplanted within 12 months of recruitment (n = 22) were followed 12 months post-transplant and compared with those still wait-listed (n = 19) to examine pre- to post-transplant changes. Qualitative interviews with ten SPKT recipients 12 months post-transplant were analysed thematically. Cross-sectional analyses showed several better 12-month outcomes for SPKT recipients compared with those still wait-listed, a trend to better health utilities but no difference in diabetes-specific QoL or diabetes treatment satisfaction. Pre- to post-transplant, SPKT recipients showed improved treatment satisfaction, well-being, self-reported health, generic QoL and less negative impact on renal-specific QoL (ps < 0.05). Health utility values were better overall in transplant recipients and neither these nor diabetes-specific QoL changed significantly in either group. Pre-emptive transplant advantages seen in 12-month cross-sectional analyses disappeared when controlling for baseline values. Qualitative findings indicated diabetes complications, self-imposed blood glucose monitoring and dietary restrictions continued to impact QoL negatively post-transplant. Unrealistic expectations of SPKT caused some disappointment. Measuring condition-specific PROMs over time will help in demonstrating the benefits and limitations of SPKT.

Inequity in Access to Transplantation in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the presence of a universal health care system, it is unclear if there is intercenter variation in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom. This study aims to assess whether equity exists in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom after adjustment for patient-specific factors and center practice patterns. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this prospective, observational cohort study including all 71 United Kingdom kidney centers, incident RRT patients recruited between November 2011 and March 2013 as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures study were analyzed to assess preemptive listing (n=2676) and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (n=1970) by center. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six participants (26%) were listed preemptively, whereas 585 (30%) were listed within 2 years of commencing dialysis. The interquartile range across centers was 6%-33% for preemptive listing and 25%-40% for listing after starting dialysis. Patient factors, including increasing age, most comorbidities, body mass index >35 kg/m2, and lower socioeconomic status, were associated with a lower likelihood of being listed and accounted for 89% and 97% of measured intercenter variation for preemptive listing and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis, respectively. Asian (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.72) and Black (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.71) participants were both associated with reduced access to preemptive listing; however Asian participants were associated with a higher likelihood of being listed after starting dialysis (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.79). As for center factors, being registered at a transplanting center (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.36 to 4.07) and a universal approach to discussing transplantation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.78) were associated with higher preemptive listing, whereas using a written protocol was associated negatively with listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Patient case mix accounts for most of the intercenter variation seen in access to transplantation in the United Kingdom, with practice patterns also contributing some variation. Socioeconomic inequity exists despite having a universal health care system.

Recipient Comorbidity and Survival Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation: A UK-wide Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is increasingly common in kidney transplant recipients, yet the implications for transplant outcomes are not fully understood. We analyzed the relationship between recipient comorbidity and survival outcomes in a UK-wide prospective cohort study-Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM). METHODS: A total of 2100 adult kidney transplant recipients were recruited from all 23 UK transplant centers between 2011 and 2013. Data on 15 comorbidities were collected at the time of transplantation. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to analyze the relationship between comorbidity and 2-year graft survival, patient survival, and transplant survival (earliest of graft failure or patient death) for deceased-donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients (n = 1288) and living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (n = 812). RESULTS: For DDKT recipients, peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 3.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-6.74; P = 0.006) and obesity (HR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.27-4.06; P = 0.006) were independent risk factors for graft loss, while heart failure (HR 3.77, 95% CI: 1.79-7.95; P = 0.0005), cerebrovascular disease (HR 3.45, 95% CI: 1.72-6.92; P = 0.0005), and chronic liver disease (HR 4.36, 95% CI: 1.29-14.71; P = 0.018) were associated with an increased risk of mortality. For LDKT recipients, heart failure (HR 3.83, 95% CI: 1.15-12.81; P = 0.029) and diabetes (HR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.03-4.81; P = 0.042) were associated with poorer transplant survival. CONCLUSIONS: The key comorbidities that predict poorer 2-year survival outcomes after kidney transplantation have been identified in this large prospective cohort study. The findings will facilitate assessment of individual patient risks and evidence-based decision making.

Cold Pulsatile Machine Perfusion Versus Static Cold Storage for Kidneys Donated After Circulatory Death: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of cold pulsatile machine perfusion (MP) for the storage and transportation of kidneys donated after circulatory death are disputed. We conducted a UK-based multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare outcomes of kidneys stored with MP versus static cold storage (CS). METHODS: Fifty-one pairs of kidneys donated after circulatory death were randomly allocated to receive static CS or cold pulsatile MP. The primary endpoint, delayed graft function, was analyzed by "intention-to-treat" evaluation. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of delayed graft function between CS and MP (32/51 (62.8%) and 30/51 (58.8%) P = 0.69, respectively), although the trial stopped early due to difficulty with recruitment. There was no difference in the incidence of acute rejection, or in graft or patient survival between the CS and MP groups. Median estimated glomerular filtration rate at 3 months following transplantation was significantly lower in the CS group compared with MP (CS 34 mL/min IQR 26-44 vs MP 45 mL/min IQR 36-60, P = 0.006), although there was no significant difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate between CS and MP at 12 months posttransplant. CONCLUSIONS: This study is underpowered, which limits definitive conclusions about the use of MP, as an alternative to static CS. It did not demonstrate that the use of MP reduces the incidence of delayed graft function in donation after circulatory death kidney transplantation.

Equity-Efficiency Trade-offs Associated With Alternative Approaches to Deceased Donor Kidney Allocation: A Patient-level Simulation.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients waiting to receive a kidney transplant outstrips the supply of donor organs. We sought to quantify trade-offs associated with different approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and access to transplantation. METHODS: An individual patient simulation model was developed to compare 5 different approaches to kidney allocation, including the 2006 UK National Kidney Allocation Scheme (NKAS) and a QALY maximization approach designed to maximize health gains from a limited supply of donor organs. We used various sources of patient-level data to develop multivariable regression models to predict survival, health state utilities, and costs. We simulated the allocation of kidneys from 2200 deceased donors to a waiting list of 5500 patients and produced estimates of total lifetime costs and QALYs for each allocation scheme. RESULTS: Among patients who received a transplant, the QALY maximization approach generated 48 045 QALYs and cost £681 million, while the 2006 NKAS generated 44 040 QALYs and cost £625 million. When also taking into consideration outcomes for patients who were not prioritized to receive a transplant, the 2006 NKAS produced higher total QALYs and costs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £110 741/QALY compared with the QALY maximization approach. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 NKAS, a QALY maximization approach makes more efficient use of deceased donor kidneys but reduces access to transplantation for older patients and results in greater inequity in the distribution of health gains between patients who receive a transplant and patients who remain on the waiting list.

Assessing Consensus Between UK Renal Clinicians on Listing for Kidney Transplantation: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that there is significant variation between centers in access to kidney transplantation. In the absence of high-grade evidence, it is unclear whether variation is due to patient case mix, other center factors, or individual clinician decisions. This study sought consensus between UK clinicians on factors that should influence access to kidney transplantation. METHODS: As part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures project, consultant nephrologists and transplant surgeons in 71 centers were invited to participate in a Delphi study involving 2 rounds. During rounds 1 and 2, participants rated their agreement to 29 statements covering 8 topics regarding kidney transplantation. A stakeholder meeting was used to discuss statements of interest after the 2 rounds. RESULTS: In total, 122 nephrologists and 16 transplant surgeons from 45 units participated in rounds 1 and 2. After 2 rounds, 12 of 29 statements reached consensus. Fifty people participated in the stakeholder meeting. After the stakeholder meeting, a further 4 statements reached agreement. Of the 8 topics covered, consensus was reached in 6: use of a transplant protocol, patient age, body mass index, patient compliance with treatment, cardiac workup, and use of multidisciplinary meetings. Consensus was not reached on screening for malignancy and use of peripheral Doppler studies. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process identified factors upon which clinicians agreed and areas where consensus could not be achieved. The findings should inform national guidelines to support decision making in the absence of high quality evidence and to guide areas that warrant future research.

Kidney transplant graft outcomes in 379 257 recipients on 3 continents.

Kidney transplant outcomes that vary by program or geopolitical unit may result from variability in practice patterns or health care delivery systems. In this collaborative study, we compared kidney graft outcomes among 4 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand) on 3 continents. We analyzed transplant and follow-up registry data from 1988-2014 for 379 257 recipients of first kidney-only transplants using Cox regression. Compared to the United States, 1-year adjusted graft failure risk was significantly higher in the United Kingdom (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.26, P < .001) and New Zealand (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.46, P < .001), but lower in Australia (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96, P = .001). In contrast, long-term adjusted graft failure risk (conditional on 1-year function) was significantly higher in the United States compared to Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (HR 0.74, 0.75, and 0.74, respectively; each P < .001). Thus long-term kidney graft outcomes are approximately 25% worse in the United States than in 3 other countries with well-developed kidney transplant systems. Case mix differences and residual confounding from unmeasured factors were found to be unlikely explanations. These findings suggest that identification of potentially modifiable country-specific differences in care delivery and/or practice patterns should be sought.

Estimating Health-State Utility Values in Kidney Transplant Recipients and Waiting-List Patients Using the EQ-5D-5L.

OBJECTIVES: To report health-state utility values measured using the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in a large sample of patients with end-stage renal disease and to explore how these values vary in relation to patient characteristics and treatment factors. METHODS: As part of the prospective observational study entitled "Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures," we captured information on patient characteristics and treatment factors in a cohort of incident kidney transplant recipients and a cohort of prevalent patients on the transplant waiting list in the United Kingdom. We assessed patients' health status using the EQ-5D-5L and conducted multivariable regression analyses of index scores. RESULTS: EQ-5D-5L responses were available for 512 transplant recipients and 1704 waiting-list patients. Mean index scores were higher in transplant recipients at 6 months after transplant surgery (0.83) compared with patients on the waiting list (0.77). In combined regression analyses, a primary renal diagnosis of diabetes was associated with the largest decrement in utility scores. When separate regression models were fitted to each cohort, female gender and Asian ethnicity were associated with lower utility scores among waiting-list patients but not among transplant recipients. Among waiting-list patients, longer time spent on dialysis was also associated with poorer utility scores. When comorbidities were included, the presence of mental illness resulted in a utility decrement of 0.12 in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new insights into variations in health-state utility values from a single source that can be used to inform cost-effectiveness evaluations in patients with end-stage renal disease.

Barriers to living donor kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom: a national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) provides more timely access to transplantation and better clinical outcomes than deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). This study investigated disparities in the utilization of LDKT in the UK. METHODS: A total of 2055 adults undergoing kidney transplantation between November 2011 and March 2013 were prospectively recruited from all 23 UK transplant centres as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) study. Recipient variables independently associated with receipt of LDKT versus DDKT were identified. RESULTS: Of the 2055 patients, 807 (39.3%) received LDKT and 1248 (60.7%) received DDKT. Multivariable modelling demonstrated a significant reduction in the likelihood of LDKT for older age {odds ratio [OR] 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.17], P < 0.0001 for 65-75 years versus 18-34 years}; Asian ethnicity [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.39-0.77), P = 0.0006 versus White]; Black ethnicity [OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.42-0.99), P = 0.047 versus White]; divorced, separated or widowed [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.46-0.88), P = 0.030 versus married]; no qualifications [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.74), P < 0.0001 versus higher education qualifications]; no car ownership [OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.37-0.72), P = 0.0001] and no home ownership [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.85-0.79), P = 0.002]. The odds of LDKT varied significantly between countries in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing kidney transplantation in the UK, there are significant age, ethnic, socio-economic and geographic disparities in the utilization of LDKT. Further work is needed to explore the potential for targeted interventions to improve equity in living donor transplantation.

Global trends and challenges in deceased donor kidney allocation.

Worldwide, the number of patients able to benefit from kidney transplantation is greatly restricted by the severe shortage of deceased donor organs. Allocation of this scarce resource is increasingly challenging and complex. Striking an acceptable balance between efficient use of (utility) and fair access to (equity) the limited supply of donated kidneys raises controversial but important debates at ethical, medical, and social levels. There is no international consensus on the recipient and donor factors that should be considered in the kidney allocation process. There is a general trend toward a reduction in the influence of human leukocyte antigen mismatch and an increase in the importance of other factors shown to affect posttransplant outcomes, such as cold ischemia, duration of dialysis, donor and recipient age, and comorbidity. Increased consideration of equity has led to improved access to transplantation for disadvantaged patient groups. There has been an overall improvement in the transparency and accountability of allocation policies. Novel and contentious approaches in kidney allocation include the use of survival prediction scores as a criterion for accessing the waiting list and at the point of organ offering with matching of predicted graft and recipient survival. This review compares the diverse international approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation and their evolution over the last decade.

Patient preferences, knowledge and beliefs about kidney allocation: qualitative findings from the UK-wide ATTOM programme.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how patients who are wait-listed for or who have received a kidney transplant understand the current UK kidney allocation system, and their views on ways to allocate kidneys in the future. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis based on a pragmatic approach. PARTICIPANTS: 10 deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients, 10 live-donor kidney transplant recipients, 12 participants currently wait-listed for a kidney transplant and 4 participants whose kidney transplant failed. SETTING: Semistructured telephone interviews conducted with participants in their own homes across the UK. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: uncertainty of knowledge of the allocation scheme; evaluation of the system and participant suggestions for future allocation schemes. Most participants identified human leucocyte anitgen matching as a factor in determining kidney allocation, but were often uncertain of the accuracy of their knowledge. In the absence of information that would allow a full assessment, the majority of participants consider that the current system is effective. A minority of participants were concerned about the perceived lack of transparency of the general decision-making processes within the scheme. Most participants felt that people who are younger and those better matched to the donor kidney should be prioritised for kidney allocation, but in contrast to the current scheme, less priority was considered appropriate for longer waiting patients. Some non-medical themes were also discussed, such as whether parents of dependent children should be prioritised for allocation, and whether patients with substance abuse problems be deprioritised. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants held differing views about the most important factors for kidney allocation, some of which were in contrast to the current scheme. Patient participation in reviewing future allocation policies will provide insight as to what is considered acceptable to patients and inform healthcare staff of the kinds of information patients would find most useful.

Predicting patient survival after deceased donor kidney transplantation using flexible parametric modelling.

BACKGROUND: The influence of donor and recipient factors on outcomes following kidney transplantation is commonly analysed using Cox regression models, but this approach is not useful for predicting long-term survival beyond observed data. We demonstrate the application of a flexible parametric approach to fit a model that can be extrapolated for the purpose of predicting mean patient survival. The primary motivation for this analysis is to develop a predictive model to estimate post-transplant survival based on individual patient characteristics to inform the design of alternative approaches to allocating deceased donor kidneys to those on the transplant waiting list in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We analysed data from over 12,000 recipients of deceased donor kidney or combined kidney and pancreas transplants between 2003 and 2012. We fitted a flexible parametric model incorporating restricted cubic splines to characterise the baseline hazard function and explored a range of covariates including recipient, donor and transplant-related factors. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis showed the risk of death increased with recipient and donor age, diabetic nephropathy as the recipient's primary renal diagnosis and donor hypertension. The risk of death was lower in female recipients, patients with polycystic kidney disease and recipients of pre-emptive transplants. The final model was used to extrapolate survival curves in order to calculate mean survival times for patients with specific characteristics. CONCLUSION: The use of flexible parametric modelling techniques allowed us to address some of the limitations of both the Cox regression approach and of standard parametric models when the goal is to predict long-term survival.

Understanding cost of care for patients on renal replacement therapy: looking beyond fixed tariffs.

BACKGROUND: In a number of countries, reimbursement to hospitals providing renal dialysis services is set according to a fixed tariff. While the cost of maintenance dialysis and transplant surgery are amenable to a system of fixed tariffs, patients with established renal failure commonly present with comorbid conditions that can lead to variations in the need for hospitalization beyond the provision of renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Patient-level cost data for incident renal replacement therapy patients in England were obtained as a result of linkage of the Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset to UK Renal Registry data. Regression models were developed to explore variations in hospital costs in relation to treatment modality, number of years on treatment and factors such as age and comorbidities. The final models were then used to predict annual costs for patients with different sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Excluding the cost of renal replacement therapy itself, inpatient costs generally decreased with number of years on treatment for haemodialysis and transplant patients, whereas costs for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis remained constant. Diabetes was associated with higher mean annual costs for all patients irrespective of treatment modality and hospital setting. Age did not have a consistent effect on costs. CONCLUSIONS: Combining predicted hospital costs with the fixed costs of renal replacement therapy showed that the total cost differential for a patient continuing on dialysis rather than receiving a transplant is considerable following the first year of renal replacement therapy, thus reinforcing the longer-term economic advantage of transplantation over dialysis for the health service.

Kidney donation after circulatory death (DCD): state of the art.

The use of kidneys from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has the potential to markedly increase kidney transplants performed. However, this potential is not being realized because of concerns that DCD kidneys are inferior to those from donation after brain-death (DBD) donors. The United Kingdom has developed a large and successful controlled DCD kidney transplant program that has allowed for a substantial increase in kidney transplant numbers. Here we describe recent trends in DCD kidney donor activity in the United Kingdom, outline aspects of the donation process, and describe donor selection and allocation of DCD kidneys. Previous UK Transplant Registry analyses have shown that while DCD kidneys are more susceptible to cold ischemic injury and have a higher incidence of delayed graft function, short- and medium-term transplant outcomes are similar in recipients of kidneys from DCD and DBD donors. We present an updated, extended UK registry analysis showing that longer-term transplant outcomes in DCD donor kidneys are also similar to those for DBD donor kidneys, and that transplant outcomes for kidneys from expanded-criteria DCD donors are no less favorable than for expanded-criteria DBD donors. Accordingly, the selection criteria for use of kidneys from DCD donors should be the same as those used for DBD donors. The UK experience suggests that wider international development of DCD kidney transplantation programs will help address the global shortage of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation.